Trackbacks & Pings

1. Who has the right to speak about racism? « Restructure! on 14 Aug 2008 at 5:55 pm

   [...] A Question of Authority, Fatemeh Fakhraie of Muslimah Media Watch was advised by somebody not speak to about racial issues [...]

Comments

1. little mixed girl wrote:

   i don’t think that one person can speak on behalf of a whole group.
   within any given group, no one person will have the same experience as the person next to them.
   that, however, doesn’t mean that i think that people should only write about their own experiences, but when something is written, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
   i’ve seen many things written by mixed people that i don’t agree with and that don’t reflect my reality.

   instead of looking for a spokesperson, all people need to realize that no one can speak on behalf of a group unless that group has held a vote to appoint that person as their representative.

   (i keep getting a “you are posting comments too quickly, slow down”, when i have only pressed the reply button once! anyone know what’s up with that and how i can get rid of it?)

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 6:27 am ¶

2. Pheagan wrote:

   Would a Southeast Asian professor have authority speaking about African-American issues? Would a professor of mixed Asian and African-American descent have authority? Would a Nigerian professor have authority to speak on issues that face African-Americans, as opposed to Africans? What about an African-American who was born into extreme wealth and privelege? Can an African-American man have authority when speaking about the issues facing African-American women? I think that, when one speaks about racial issues, you can always find something that chips away at racial authority. One person’s experience can illuminate racial issues, but I doubt if it ever tells the whole story. And while it does seem wrong that the field of talking about racial issues falls so much into the hands of white academics, but at the same time could you blame any one of them for trying to give voice to an issue that needs to be given voice to? I suppose you could if they PRESUME racial authority; but if someone is simply limiting themselves to facts and anecdotes with an open mind and a listening ear, I feel it’s a step in the right direction.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 8:01 am ¶

3. Abu Sinan wrote:

   Good points. It would seem that the powers that be tend to push forward and support those who tow their line of thought regardless of any expertise or education in the area, Irshad Manji would be a good example.

   These people then go on to be touted by those groups who are the ones whose agenda actually works against the people in question.

   Manji is the perfect example claiming to speak for and have knowledge of Islam and Middle Eastern women’s issues, when the truth is without the backing of many far right, neo conservative and Islamophobic organisations, no one would know who she is, and rightly so.

   As Tarek Fatah, the well known Canadian liberal said her book “is aimed at making Muslim haters feel secure in their thinking.”

   Who has the right to speak as an authority? Good question. I think everyone has the right to speak on an issue, the larger question is, what weight do we give to various people’s opinions and why.

   Education in the subject at hand should play a huge role, as should experience of the subject matter. Being part of the group in question is important as well, but shouldnt be a deciding factor.

   If at all possible, people within the group in question should be promoted. It does bother me to see people outside of a group put forward as a spokesperson for the group when there are so many capable members of that group that could act in that capacity.

   However, when outside forces with outside agendas, hand pick a member of that group to forward their agenda, it is no better. Thus is the case with people like Manji and Nomani.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 8:46 am ¶

4. LM wrote:

   It’s valid to raise issues of authority on racial matters, and they can be challenging.

   But authority doesn’t come from skin color or phenotype, and neither is one barred from attaining authority for the same reason. To the extent that those facts are attached to experiences within a community and with the rest of the world, sure, they have a great deal to do with authority. Same thing to the extent that skin color or phenotype limits our experiences. But we’re not born with or without it.

   I’m especially dubious of any attempt to boil this kind of question down to a set of rules. “Past a certain point”? That’s the most realistic attempt I’ve seen, and it’s obviously amorphous. The reality of the situation will dictate and at some level, if someone’s going to exercise “authority,” there’s a decision involved. If two or more people decide to, there’s going to be some sorting out. Some people will rise up, some will step down. It’s cool — this isn’t limited to racial matters.

   “…no matter how much homework I do, there are always viewpoints that I will not be qualified to speak on.” This is a statement of humility that I’m inclined 1) to believe is universal and 2) places to much emphasis on “viewpoints.” We are always qualified to speak on our own viewpoints, even if we’re thoroughly ignorant. Ideally, we should always take other people into account, and to the extent we understand their viewpoints we’ll do better at that.

   “Often, white academics or non-profit workers will speak for Middle Eastern and South Asian women on what issues ‘they face, when there are plenty of Middle Eastern and South Asian academics and activists who could do this. For Middle Eastern and South Asian women, denying these people their voices has shades of colonialism to it..”

   Because these white academics and non-profit types speak, others’ voices are denied? I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen, and too frequently. But it’s certainly not a straight correlation. The problem isn’t simply because white people speak.

   For that matter, people in academia and non-profit circles, white, Middle Eastern or otherwise, tend to speak about far more than they speak “for” — same goes for Soledad O’Brien on the “Black in America” series. It’s still important that “good” voices speak about, but the standard here is and should be much lower than “for.” They’re completely different positions.

   “Would a South Asian professor of African American studies, for example, have authority to speak on issues facing Black Americans?” If he/she has authority to speak on these issues, then he/she would have the authority. Apologies — but you know it when you see it. Knowing that someone is South Asian doesn’t tell me much about him/her.

   “But being from a specific background doesn’t automatically make you an expert on hundreds of others who may share your background, nationality, religion, etc.”

   True. Imagine your average American trying to teach American history.

   “Just because I’m Muslim… doesn’t mean I know jack about female genital cutting, for example.” OK — and we would hope the standards aren’t set too high here, right?

   So an authority isn’t “necessarily” someone who has lived an experience or who has a degree in an area of study, though the first is almost always helpful and the second tends to be. Anyone has a right to speak; whether they’re an authority is a separate question. On social issues, I think we tend not to act on someone’s claim to be an authority but on what they’re actually saying.

   Just my couple of pennies.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 9:11 am ¶

5. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @little mixed girl –

   We will ask our tech people. That should only come up if you are posting multiple comments to multiple threads in a short time frame.

   @Pheagan –

   The issue I tend to have is not that people are speaking on a subject. It is that they claim to be the one true authority on the subject and everyone else must be wrong. I talk about race here all day every day, and in a pinch, I will answer questions about groups other than my own. But I tend to do that with caveats and I tend to cite people from within that group to back up what I am saying.

   I also understand that for every experience one may have, someone may have an equal and opposite experience – both experiences are valid. I think the key is making a more persuasive argument for your side.

   I don’t see issues with say, a South Asian professor speaking about black issues in the US as long as they are not wedded to a certain theory – which tends to be a problem in racial debates. People develop this one idea or this one theory and then stick to it, refusing to acknowledge that it may not apply at all to certain situations, or it may need to be expanded.

   To illustrate, here’s an example: I had two white professors for two separate classes. They both spoke about race, class, and gender in line with what they were discussing. Both classes (one was technically government and one was sociology) were difficult to sit through, but for different reasons.

   My government instructor infuriated us on a regular basis. Why? Because he would argue both sides against the middle. If we landed on one conclusion, he would flip around and argue the other. He could tackle colonization from the standard narrative and was the first instructor I know to introduce us to the Native side of the story and actively encourage us to debate the ideas and motivations around settlement. He would lead us around and around in conversations, never allowing us to get comfortable with any one idea.

   My classmates and I were often exasperated as there wasn’t just one answer. (You should have seen the quizzes, which were later phased out in favor of debates.)

   Later on, as we went through school, we were increasingly thankful for this teacher and his lessons. He never told us how to think, so while we were angry then, being forced to fight through our own opinions served us well.

   I had another teacher, a sociology instructor, who would try to do the same things in his class, but would fail. Why? Because he did not understand enough of the other side to fully flesh out the issue. He would talk about gender privilege, but only from the standpoint of the victimization of women. No discussion of masculinity or power that results, no discussion of the role of the woman in history, no discussion of gender binary – the discussion was essentially “being a woman sucks.”

   Ditto with a conversation on Africa. He talked about the politics of water and tribal mentality (if you give the Africans a spigot, they will fight over control) but never bridged the bigger question of why there was a need to control this resource, why African nations find themselves in this fucked up position in the first place, what small ideas of power and control mean in a destablized area…nada. And challenging him was fruitless because he could not see past the “knowledge” he was imparting.

   I took the first class in high school, the second class in college.

   but if someone is simply limiting themselves to facts and anecdotes with an open mind and a listening ear, I feel it’s a step in the right direction.

   Yes. It is the willingness to engage, as well as challenge what you are learning/hearing/teaching and having an evolving understanding of the subject that I think works best. But again, questions of authority are difficult, and people tend to look toward those who give distinct solutions and make polarizing statements.

   @Abu –

   I think everyone has the right to speak on an issue, the larger question is, what weight do we give to various people’s opinions and why.

   Education in the subject at hand should play a huge role, as should experience of the subject matter. Being part of the group in question is important as well, but shouldnt be a deciding factor.

   Seems solid. I would add “active engagement” to the issues as well – academics who haven’t spoken to anyone in their field in 20 years also are not necessarily the best people to go to looking for an explanation. As I said in another comment, authority is complicated…and easily challenged.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 9:14 am ¶

6. C-Marsh wrote:

   A jumble of thoughts.

   “Who has the right to speak as an authority on a race or ethnicity?”

   I tend to favor the viewpoints of people who have studied a subject to ascertain greater understanding of race and ethnicity rather than someone who simply has a lived experience. Lived experience is great, but I think that it needs to be paired with some type of study to form the greater understanding and visa-versa. This study does not have to be a formal education or specific program, but simply someone who has done “homework” on the subject. Comedians like Dave Chappelle, Paul Mooney, Russell Peters, Chris Rock, etc. have all expressed ideas that are extremely complex in nature that can be gained through lived experience, but it is apparent in their acts that they have done a little extra research that gives them a deeper comprehension.

   (The ideal version)

   I think that it is important to keep in mind when discussing issues, that NO ONE is an ultimate authority. We should be careful about the way in which we discuss facts and study results. Often times, people feel compelled to say that this study proves this and that, while forgetting to qualify our statements. We should remember our research training 101; results simply indicate and imply, but rarely ever prove. We have to remember to make it habit to use qualifiers in our discourse and this is especially true when talking about an issue that may not directly affect your “in-group.” There is definitely more pressure for a White person with a degree in inequality, discrimination, etc. to acknowledge his or her privilege when discussing the privilege of an entire group. I would suggest that we all acknowledge our personal/group privileges when discussing issues such as these and make more of an active effort to not be perceived as an ultimate authority. Greater authority should be derived from substantial empirical evidence to support a claim, but we do have to acknowledge that studies and results may be flawed due to confounds.

   (The reality)

   Authority should be given to claims with empirical evidence, but often times this is not the case. I am always behooved when I see new reporters asking actors and other celebrities if they think that X is still a factor in America, rather than talking to people who have made a lifetime out of studying X. Let’s ask Jennifer Lopez how she feels about illegal immigration rather than this person with a Doctorate on immigration trends in America. Not that J-Lo would be unable to give an appropriate answer, but I’m not confident that she would be able to pull sound evidence that supports her position. The media typically portrays people as having a legitimate authority, but now viewers have more ability to reinforce or refute that authority with forums like this. The tragedy is that more people are willing to take a celebrity like Brooke Hogan’s view of a woman running in the Presidential Election rather than from someone who should actually have an authority to speak on that topic.

   On the flip side, it is also a trap to think that because someone has studied a particular phenomenon that he or she should have greater authority. Fox News loves to use Shelby Steele and other Black Conservatives as the “See, we have a Black guy who agrees with us” authority. Determining authority is a difficult line to walk, but it is necessary in order to actually achieve any significant change. I think Pheagan’s comment wraps up my rant of endless thoughts: “…if someone is simply limiting themselves to facts and anecdotes with an open mind and a listening ear, I feel it’s a step in the right direction.” Well said.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 9:45 am ¶

7. Fatemeh wrote:

   @ C-Marsh (shuddering at the Brooke Hogan reference)

   LM: “Because these white academics and non-profit types speak, others’ voices are denied? I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen, and too frequently. But it’s certainly not a straight correlation.” Let me contextualize that and clarify it: when I go to a panel discussion on South Asian women, for example, and 4/5 people there are white academics and non-profit workers, I am disappointed at a missed opportunity to give more South Asian women voices for themselves. Yes, these academics & non-profit workers may have value experience and/or insight, but why aren’t there any South Asian academics and/or non-profit workers there? They do exist.

   I am really enjoying your responses, everyone. Thank you!

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 11:34 am ¶

8. maia wrote:

   i think the problem is assuming that there is anyone who can speak as an ‘authority’ on ‘issues’ of race and ethnicity. the best that i can do is speak as a woman of color who identifies as such and i speak and write of what i have experienced. i am not trying to hide behind individualism. i belong to a community. but it is a community that i cannot, nor do i believe anyone, can be a spokesperson for. and i resent when my expression of my experiences are taken to be an expression of the entire community. yes, i assume and know that some of my experiences can be correlated with others experiences.
   i resent the idea that people assume that they are the ‘voice of the voiceless’. i have not met someone who is ‘voiceless’. even my 1 year old daughter speaks clearly about what is important to her, even though she does not have a large vocabulary. i have met people who the powers that be have denied them an ability to speak to whomever the ‘voiceless’ choose.
   often we look to those who have a college degree about a particular community or ethnicity, ignoring or overlooking the extreme classism that authority has been privileged to receive.
   what this reminds me of is a theory that a woman i met in the west bank hipped me to. ‘the empty center’ that all of us assume that there is a center that defines a certain group or community and yet there is never a center. all of us are staring at an empty center, some of us mistakenly assume we are the center, others of us assume that someone else is the center. but in reality the center is empty.
   some of us are closer to the empty center and others are more marginalized. but there is no one in the center.
   nor is there an authority on a particular race or ethnicity. the best any of us can do is speak about the various ways that we live inside and outside of certain communities.
   currently i am writing about palestinian women and my experience in the west bank. and yes, i interview and quote palestinian women i have known and loved. but i am not their voice. i am my voice, experiencing their voice. and speaking and writing about my experiencing.
   i am also writing about working poor black women giving birth. and while we share a closer connection(i too am working poor, black and a mama) i do not speak for them. but i can speak of my experience of listening and standing near them.
   we cannot be more than who we are. a member of a culture but not the culture itself. a woman of color meeting other women of color, but our authority is vested in our ability to relay our experience of being a sentient being in the world. and if you pass for white, are iranian, are female, are a member of a community, then that is where you speak from. and not who you speak for.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 12:08 pm ¶

9. Tariq Nelson wrote:

   I agree with maia. No one can speak for an entire race or ethnicity, but can only speak on their own particular experiences. My sister and I grew up in the same home, under the same circumstances, but we have different outlooks on the world. I can’t even speak for her, much less for all other blacks.

   Like Latoya, I have no problem with a non-black speaking on black issues – even if they are critical, as long as that criticism does not get into stereotyping and broad brushing.

   Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 1:24 pm ¶

10. LM wrote:

    Fatemeh, thanks for the context re: white academics/non-profit types. I can understand your frustration at that scenario.

    But I think it’s important to attack the right target. Unless a panelist just isn’t well-equipped for the discussion or speaks imperialistically, the problem isn’t with an invitee — they’re not taking away from a person of South Asian descent.

    The organizer(s) is/are. (Mind you, I recognize that there’s often overlap in organization/presentation, but I still it important to separate these roles.)

    If I saw that panel and knew there were other potential invitees who might have made for a better dialogue, I too would be upset.

    But the fact that there are other people to invite means the fight is to have their voices heard, not to silence the people already getting play (unless they happen to be spectacularly unqualified).

    I don’t mean at all to say the equivalent of “that’s just the way it is” and dismiss the real issue of vital voices being excluded. I just think it crucial to make the distinction between “instead of” and “in addition to” on a broad level. (Of course, on a single panel that will mean “instead of” — which is cool with me.)

    (BTW — on re-reading your piece, I can interpret it this way… so I don’t see my comments as contradicting yours so much as stretching them out a bit. Thanks again.)

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶

11. Fatemeh wrote:

    LM, not at all. I think your comments are great and elucidate the ideas further; thanks!

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 3:26 pm ¶

12. Eric Daniels wrote:

    I tend to think if the person knows their field of study and has done the legwork they should have the right to comment on a particular ethnic or racial group, but the problem is many people within and outside of those groups have a politcal and social agenda which may be for against that groups interests. Ex. 1. Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute who thinks that is okay to racially profile all Blacks because some are in jail and uses ” her stats” does it with a bit of detached acadmese but her politics are really conservative and very fascist with bad results for POC , She was on Mayor Guliani’s crime board who helped put together the stop and frisk polices that has caused many innocent black and latino lives in New York City.

    So I think people in that particular group has to do their due dilligance and make sure these outsiders will be fair AND people of the same ethnic group also because as Chuck D said “Every Brother ain’t the same color”.

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 5:13 pm ¶

13. HotConflict wrote:

    This is one of the Most important issues facing the Muslim community right now.

    Just because someone gets the most coverage does not mean they represent the faith.
    Osama Bin Laden is the case in point. He has no religious or political authority.

    Finding Muslims who are “good” representatives of their faith to a wester audience is an extremely difficult challenge.

    Sometime the person who becomes the authority is the one who can best elucidate the issues.

    The best communicator?
    In this specific area i have developed a website over the last few years. The subject is perception and media framing of the War on Terror and general cultural diversity.

    In Islam we do not have a Priesthood. The idea of being an authority has many levels.
    Right now we need a better representation of Islam on the radio and TV.

    HotConflict.com

    Looking at the Hottest issues in the News, Politics and PoP Culture, from inside the Muslim Mind.

    http://www.HotConflict.com

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 7:09 pm ¶

14. em wrote:

    first, i find the idea of any person being an authority on race very problematic. second, i think everyone should be able to talk “about” race, as opposed to “for” a particular racial group. i don’t really think anyone should speak “for” anyone other than him/herself.

    but as i was reading this post and many of the comments, i started to think in terms of outcome, and what steps need to be taken for that outcome to happen. how is being an “authority” on race important in the bigger question of, what do we hope to achieve by talking about race?

    do we want to affect the recognition and subsequent deconstruction of racist attitudes and their socio-political manifestations? that seems like a big part of the reason we talk about race.

    if that’s something we can agree on, then don’t we want a lot of people talking about and engaging with racial issues? wouldn’t we want to include as many people from all different kinds of backgrounds in the conversation? would it be conducive to the end goal for them to qualify as “authorities” on race?

    i’m also uncomfortable with that idea that people who talk about race need to be “educated” or somehow credentialed. in the context of a university or academic forum this makes perfect sense. but in the broader context of trying to get more people talking and thinking about race, i think it’s intellectually elitist to require a certain level of education from the speaker.

    in fact, i think that a lot of the academic language that is used to discuss race makes it very hard for the average joe to access the conversation. and i think we need more average joes involved in conversations about marginalization…

    great post and comments. keeps me thinking thanks!

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 8:27 pm ¶

15. Fatemeh wrote:

    em, thanks for your comments. It’s easy to forget that the actual percentage of those who have degrees worldwide is a smaller number (I don’t have any sources for this, so I won’t throw out numbers). The sociopolitical and socioeconomic aspect is a big one; thanks for bringing it up.

    Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 10:54 pm ¶

16. AC wrote:

    As I’ve read (lurked) through the comments I tried to come up with a definitive answer to your query and have come to the conclusion that there may not be a definitive answer.

    Who gets to identify themselves as an “authority”? I for one am immediately leery of anyone who tries to proclaim themselves an “authority” on any subject. That is ususally a prelude to “I-am-the-one-true-voice/ur-doing-it-wrong” kind of dead-end arguments and tends to seperate those who have actual wisdom to impart from those who merely want to seem wise and all-knowing.

    As for people who are not a member of community x speaking to issues that community x faces – if they can do so without shutting out other voices and help further constructive dialogue or even resolutions I see their involvement as a positive thing. For example: I’m black and female. I read Tim Wise (who is not black (or female- lol!)) making all kinds of brillant points when discussing issues of race and am appreciative that he adds his voice to the conversation. But that is just my opinion, there are black people who do not like Tim Wise and do not see him as having authority to speak about the black community.

    I’ve been toying with the theory that true “authority” is in the eye of the beholder (ear of the listener/eye of the reader). In the end, isn’t your credibility determined by those who are reading or listening to you and are persuaded to your way of thinking? I don’t mean in some sort of big American Idol, popularity contest type of way but by the simple fact that if you are talking out of your a** that usually catches up with you.

    And therefore authority isn’t yours to claim or proclaim but is, instead, awarded upon you by those to whom you speak. Maybe its like respect and you have to earn it.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:10 am ¶

17. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    @Fatemah (#7): I have to agree. I think the aforementioned panel discussions happen far too often when it comes to the subject of Muslim women. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve gone to a discusson on Muslim women only to find ONE Muslim woman on the panel (and usually she is a 2nd generation immigrant from an Arab or South Asian background who is by her own definition a ‘lax Muslim’ who is not really active in the Muslim community nor connected to it. *sigh*) The rest of the people are non-Muslim, White professors from the Religious Studies Dept. or Middle Eastern Studies (or even a White person who has lived in the Middle East and written a book about their experience.) I find myself wanting to scream!

    The fact is that there ARE many people’s voices that have been denied because (1) they complicate the otherwise simplistic picture some people paint of Muslim women (think about an African-American or Latina Muslim convert speaking about being Muslim women) (2) organizers are too lazy to look for people within the community to speak on the issue so they fall back on that one friend or colleague who happens to be from a “Muslim country” (3) They’re/we’re just simply overlooked…

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:49 pm ¶

18. CVT wrote:

    Hmmm . . . This is a topic I’ve thought about (and wrote about extensively) as a mixed-race person. There is so much “gray area” in race, and so few people are willing to acknowledge that fact.

    In the end – for me, experience trumps “research.” “Research” means nothing without having an understanding of at least some angle of the experience (obviously, having both is better). But I’d rather hear from an immigrant about immigration issues than a white American with a whole lot of research. That’s just me, though.

    In the end, nobody’s an “expert.” That’s why race is so hard to talk about. People think that their own personal experiences are the end-all be-all of how race goes. That’s why so many white folks are ignorant of racial issues. That’s why so many people of color are ignorant of any other race’s plight. If we all started realizing that our experiences shape us – and that all of our experiences are so individual, we might be able to start having some real conversations and solutions for race issues.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 7:16 pm ¶